Search:

Spiritual philosophy part 2

14 B History shows that philosophers have made too important a contribution in opposing false, strong-held opinions to rightfully claim so. But political and social changes were seldom instigated by philosophers. The used language and constructions of explanation are so complex, that a book full of philosophical clues cannot be fathomed, at least not by me.

The human train of thought and process of communication is not conducted along such strict and consequent lines. They are more intuitive, unrealistic and less deterministic. I find the science of philosophy as it is practised by leading philosophers too pretentious; their theories are thwarted by the language used to express them.

Philosophers try to explain the meaning of life in its most elementary form and free of morals. To me, the resulting stream of words is strange. It is hard to write in easy-to-understand words. It is hard for me to understand that such an elementary philosophical question results in verbaldiarrhoea with many intellectual tours de force in prolixity.

Which after reading cause one to think: Am I such a stupid nitwit that I cannot follow this argument? Of course I tried to know and understand the work of leading philosophers. I just got stuck in the purely academic and intellectual stream of words and so put the book aside unhappily, without having gained any new insights. It all sounds rather odd, looking at the subjects of this book.

The power of truth lies in its simplicity. Nature and man are complex creations. To understand this complexity is a challenge to human intelligence, even if scientifically trained, which leads one to sigh and think that the true deeper meaning will remain a divine mystery.

Despite intellectual ostentatiousness from the world’s leading scientists and thinkers. The concept of the spirit can be applied simply and universally well into the creation of life and evolution.